It probably depends on the woman, though I wouldn't go much past mid-30's, myself. There are women who give birth even older than that, but the chances of complications increase with age, plus you'll want to take into consideration the age you'll be while you're raising the kid and whether or not you can see it working for you.
There have been several women in my family that have given birth in their 30's; 33, 34, 35, and 37 to my knowledge (there may be more I don't know about), and thankfully all of the pregnancies were healthy and complication-free.
I've seen it mentioned on here in similar threads that women giving birth in their 30's increases the chances of autism, but to be honest, I think that is one of those things nobody knows for sure, just like experts have missed the mark several times over the years with things they originally thought could be linked to cancer, practices they thought to be beneficial or preventative, etc. Of course, that is no knock on them, but science is constantly evolving and new information is being discovered, and with that, old theories prove to be inaccurate or inconclusive. My personal opinion as well (though we won't go down that rabbit hole today, lol), is that autism and similar mental/psychological conditions are actually over-diagnosed as well, but I don't mean to go off topic!
Otherwise, I think it's something you should do when you feel the time and situation are right, and not rush into it if you don't feel ready. Obviously there are other factors to take into account, but I think some people rush into pregnancy before they're ready due to worries about their "biological clock".
personally i wouldn't want to have kids past 38. but if i am desperate i would be willing to go up to 43. i love babies and everyone with a negative opinion can kiss my ass. besides, media does all this fear mongering bullshit to scare women to pay thousands of dollars to freeze their eggs when they are like 25. most women up to 40 have very healthy babies and pregnancies. and some dumbasses talk about risks and all that bullshit. oh, scary. the risks "double." i know, from 1 percent to 2 percent.
It depends on her health, her history of substance (drugs and alcohol) use too, not just age. The chances of a healthy woman having a healthy kid decline rapidly after age 35. It is still possible, but not as likely, that is why you will see exceptions of some having healthy kids around 40, but many more were unable to.
If someone abuses substances (drugs/alcohol) it is possible to have kids with learning disabilities, even if she only used in her teens, stopped for even 10 years before conceiving a kid, and then still ended up having a kid with defects. The reason for that is that women already have all of their eggs, so substance abuse affects their chances of having healthy offspring more severely.
So my point is that there are other contributing factors too when considering if she should or shouldn't try to have a kid.
I personally think the people that are proven to have used drugs and then have a messed up kid should be charged with child abuse. And substance abuse, though it affects women's eggs more often and more severely, is not exclusive to them. If guys do drugs too much it damages their reproductive system and they can have the same debilitating effects on their future children as well.
@DianaWest Untrue. There are statistics in my educator's biology books that show women's fertility and chances of having healthy offspring does decline rapidly after age 35. Biology doesn't care about anyone's wishful thinking or ignorance.
there sort of is, but it can very depending on the person.
Some women have been able to give birth in their 40's, and I am too lazy to look up the record of the oldest person to give birth.
But, that will greatly depend on the physical heath of the mother, and if the doctors think she will medically be able to carry it to full term and deliver the baby.
Then comes the other big point, say you are 40, who would want to be chasing after a toddler at that age, diapers being up all night with colic, teething, chasing them around to soccer or other sports.
Not too many would have that much energy.
Some are able to do that, but at some point you may want to wait for grandchildren, except for those rare occasions that the mother may not have been able to give birth until then and it is their first.
It can get complicated rather quickly.
Opinion
36Opinion
Not just women, but people in general. I would say around age 40 should be the cut off and even that is on the high end. It takes a lot of energy to raise children and many times they may need you even when they are grown. Just because a child reaches the legal age of adulthood does not mean they are ready to face the world on their own. If you have a child at age 40, they will not be an adult until you reach 58. Even then, what if they go to college and you are helping fund their education? Then you are stuck with a huge debt right before retirement.
The best age in my opinion is in their 30s (for both parents). Mens quality of sperm declines too with age, just as much as womens. Funnily enough most aren’t aware because of the bias of ignorance. If an older woman was with a younger man her chances of conceiving more quickly and having a healthier placenta to carry the baby to full term greatly increase. It’s works both ways. Birth defects/complications etc have always typically been blamed more so on a woman’s age but actually all of the new research is saying it’s pretty equal. Just because men produce sperm daily etc slides not mean it is better quality - that belief is one of the biggest fallacies going.
Check it out for yourselves!
Also, younger parents do not have the healthiest offspring (mentally or physically) z. New research also suggests that the younger the parents, the more likely their grandchildren are to be autistic etc.
And by young I’m talking young 20s and below. 25 - 35 may be the best ideal age range.
It does make me laugh how much of societies receptions go unchallenged by up to date actual evidence.
*perceptions
But to answer your question, I personally think that should be decided more by the parents health and resources more than age. I’ve seen parents in their 50s fitter than some in their 20s. It’s all more complex than basic black and white categories.
*40s
I just think in terms of life, parents should think ahead to how long they want to be in their children's lives.
If you have kids in 20s you'll get maybe 50 years with them.
If they leave it late like 40s they lose the chance of being fit to raise them well.
Obviously it's their choice but I think I'd want to be in my kids lives for as long as possible
My late maternal grandma age 39 going on age 40 gave birth to my uncle ( late) and there was a couple we know got married and had kids in their 40's so I don't know the cut off age also there was Janet Jackson, gave birth at age 50 and her son was perfectly healthy and age 4 ?
I think they can have kids as long as they want to but they shouldn’t try for a baby when they’re close to retirement in my opinion cause I don't know why you’d want to raise kids when you’re trying to relax
That's really up to them - and their budget and abilities.
Although major advances are being made in medicine, just remember that once women are over 35 years of age, the chances of complications during childbirth increase.
Plan wisely.
There shouldn't be a cut off. If she can safely have kids without risking her life, she should be allowed to.
I think that's a personal preference. I personally didn't want to have any more biological children of my own after 35 because of the risks to the baby and because I don't want to be an old mom.
That's a decision that no one can tell you to make that's your personal choice n that's it n no one else... cause if you listen to everyone else... then you'll be disappointed
Others can do it for however long but I personally am not trying to birth age 31+ and i dont think most should age 35+ ,
Thirty-two to thirty-five. I don't think women should ideally be having kids after that. They would be 50 before the kid finishes high school.
Probably 35. But maybe up till 40 if the woman is very healthy. It’s all risky biz tho, we need to get back to our roots as a society and stop pushing women into college and partying in their 20s because that’s the best time to have kids
@DianaWest enjoy your meds
@Shamalien do you like gold diggers? because if women don't go to college and have good careers and just pop out children when they're 20, you will be the only one bringing in the dough and you better be rich.
@DianaWest show your fellow woman a little respect. If a girl is tending to the house and kids, she is not a golddigger for expecting something in return. A man with the support of a good woman can be more successful than a man and a woman working individually.
Yea, I wish being a stay at home mom was more respected. I personally think it’s ideal for the child to have a parent always there for them if possible.
@annabananna yeah it’s 100% verified fact that young children benefit greatly from spending as much time with their parents as possible. A well functioning household makes for a successful man and better earning potential too. It can be done. Having less money isn’t as bad as having less parental contact in early development. It’s the best investment one could make
Some women in their 60s have had children. After 40, the risk of birth defects increases. Best age to have kids is 20s and 30s.
What others do with their body is not anyone's business.
When their body decides it can’t have kids anymore.
I'd say no later than 39. At 40, pregnancy is high risk.
Its more like at what age should women start having kids. as long as your body will let you be healthy and have a healthy child and if you truly want kids in your mid to late 40's.
That’s such a personal choice but if I was trying 40+ I’d do IVF so I could do the chromosome testing.
It's not the age, it's the quantity! The planet is massively overcrowded as it is. Why did Covid spread so quickly? BECAUSE THERE'S TOO MANY OF US. After 2 kids one or other parent should go get the snip. It's the responsible thing to do.
Whatever age her doc tells her is safe to have a baby.
depends on the individual. i think 40 should be the cut off age. cause at that age, giving birth to a downie becomes a considerable risk.
Everyone is different. It depends on your physical condition. Some people age better that others.
Mother Nature ultimately makes that determination.
I think that a woman would know when her body shouldn’t be having babies growing inside.
Whenever you want. Just know that the odds of something going wrong skyrockets after age 30.
i think that 40 in up is the cut off from what I've heard even having a baby in your 30 can give a higher chance of the baby having health problems but 40 and up it becomes a lot more likely to happen
Usually the body decides.
I know a woman who had a perfectly healthy baby at 45.
Not age as along as they can have kids coz God has created us to fill the world
When the body cannot reproduce naturally or even with help (IVF, etc)
Go for it. when you can't get pregnant anymore then you are past your point.
when you can't afford.. or the living arrangement can't work out.
When she can't physically? Meaning it's forced and she has no choice but to stop.
we should stop making it about age and teach more economics instead. When can you afford children?
38
because after 40 it starts to become dangerous
When it’s no longer biologically possible
I would say 30's because otherwise the kid has a grandma for a mom when she brings him to school functions.
Lol not surprised by your response given your age
@grierwrange he does have a point though, and this is coming from a woman in her late thirties. That said I know women who had healthy babies after age 40 so it can happen, and if the woman has the energy to handle raising a child at that age, awesome! I personally wouldn’t try to have a baby at this age.
@grierwrange Yeah, kids should have younger parents so they have more time to spend their lives together. Of course women don't agree. If you have children in your 20s you can spend more of your life with them.
You said 30s which means 30-39. 30-35 I’d say perfectly fine and young enough. If you mean late 30s that’s different
@grierwrange People can have children whenever they want. I don't judge people. But I had friends that their fathers died when they were in high school because they were old. People love children, but think about them. If you are in your 20's you can spend more of your life with them. I know of a lady that had a kid at 55 which is extreme. Now the kid has a grandma instead of a mom.
Past 40 is dangerous. Past 35 is pushing it.
I would say at 35. After that is even more risky.
Most women either way can't have kids in 50s.
But best age is 25 - 32
When she doesn't want to have any more.
Probably mid to late 30's
Nature usually makes the choice for them.
When she feels like it.
Whenever it is unsafe for them to have a pregnancy
Any age is fine to have kids.
When they can't get pregnant by natural means.
At 40 should be her last one.
When the nature tells
13 . .
I think 40.
After 40
Latino. They go through mental pause.
Late 30s mid 40s
Dirty 5?
After 55 I guess..
You can also add your opinion below!
Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
